Pages

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Myth #14: There are no differences between gay marriage and straight
marriage.

Reality: Studies show two key
elements missing in same-sex marriage.

Those two elements appear to be
fidelity and oneness. Let's start with oneness first.

We've all heard the theology of Adam
and Eve, ie how each was made to complement the other so I won't go into more
detail on that. However, I will point out this oneness the Bible speaks of is
much more than a lovely idea or just a mere theological concept but rather a
provable scientific fact.

According to Dr. Youmasu J.
Siewe, director of the Center for Rural Health Practice at the University of
Pittsburgh at Bradford, married individuals have lower rates of depression and
schizophrenia compared to unmarried individuals. They also handle stress better
and are unlikely to feel lonely. Married individuals, according to Siewe, feel
more hopeful and better about themselves than unmarried individuals.

This has not been proven to be the
case in gay marriage.

As I stated in Part 2, if the gay relationship did have benefits, then one of the most obvious benefits would be increased life span, but gays in a "committed relationship" (more on this in a bit) have SHORTER lifespans, not longer. In fact, the numbers show what the Catholic Church has said all along: people with homosexual tendencies are better off if they live alone than with someone who enables their sin.

Notice how I put "committed relationship" the way I did? Because that is mocking a little known fact about gay relationships:

Unlike heterosexual relationships where faithfulness to your partner is not only a given but is also an unspoken expectation, in gay relationships it is expected that each partner will cheat on the other.

This was first proven in a 1984 study. This study follows the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, reported in The Male Couple (1984), which found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years. Studies done since 1984 have shown nothing has changed in the gay community in almost three decades. In one recent study
of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some
conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no
restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants
(21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months,
and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in
the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or
discordant HIV-status.

Even Alfred Kinsey, of the debunked "10% of all people are gay" notion, admitted in his findings that long term homosexual relationships were few and far between.

The desire for sexual fidelity in relationships and the benefits of such
a commitment are universal. In the long history of man, infidelity has
never been associated with maturity. Even in cultures where it is
relatively common, it is no more than discreetly tolerated.

Liberty is defined as the value of individuals to have control over their own actions, but in the classical definition, liberty meant the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion. One could also extend this to mean a belief that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.

When someone accuses a group of taking away their liberty when that group as a whole don't believe in liberty themselves, then we have the mess we're in now. Already, we have lawsuits against business over this. Consider these examples:

-A Seattle florist is being sued by a lesbian couple because she refused to sell them flowers for their wedding. Even though she stated it conflicted with her religious beliefs, that wasn't good enough to prevent the lawsuit. (Story can be found here.)

-A cake decorator in Colorado had a motion filed against him by the state attorney general after he refused an order for a gay wedding ceremony. (Story can be found here.)

-The Knights of Columbus (which I am a proud member of) was fined $2,000 by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after they learned a contract they approved was going towards using one of their facilities for a gay wedding. (here).

My point is when someone is not allowed to voice their opposition to what they believe is wrong, and when feelings are allowed to trump the truth---no matter what it may be--, then their liberty is infringed and the whole concept of liberty loses all meaning.

Even voters in California now know how little their liberty means: despite the fact the majority of voters said yes to only heterosexual marriage, and despite the fact no evidence of voter fraud could be found, that didn't matter to the courts, who said the voters do not have a legal interest in whether the amendment they voted on is allowed to be part of their constitution.

Myth #16: It was a great victory to
strike down the Defense of Marriage Act

Reality: Even the Supreme Court
admitted states can decide for themselves.

Don't let all the celebrations over
the Supreme Court ruling fool you: the Supreme Court did not---I REPEAT, DID
NOT---say gay marriage is legal, nor did they make any rulings concerning the
full faith and credit over state lines or any ruling concerning states with
constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. As far as the court is
concerned, those bans are still in effect. In the opinion of this blogger, that
will be the next legal battle concerning this issue, which will in reality be a
fight between activist judges vs the vote of the people.

Myth #17: People should be allowed
to marry whoever they want.

Reality: It is not up to individual
people to define what a marriage is.

In the Catholic Church, there exists
a notion called subsidiarity. In a nutshell, it means that matters ought to be
handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized (or most localized)
competent authority. So to break it down: the proper authority to decide
matters needs to be:

-the most local, as in closest to
you

-proven competence in the area in
question.

Now, let's look at the more
complicated issue of marriage. Who gets to decide what counts as a marriage?
Our options are individual people, church or state. Sure, each person could decide
for themselves, but consider what that often entailed. Men often left their wives
when the wife was too old to have more children; an individual person came up
with the idea of no-fault divorce laws. Now we have people wanting polygamy and
poly-amorous relationships. If people decided it, what's to stop them from
wanting to marry their pets? So people don't have that authority.

What about the state? The state can
never have the right to define marriage because of a conflict of interest, i.e.
it would conflict with their need to have more citizens for the future and
their need to want to protect everyone's rights. The best it can do is
acknowledge the marriages done by the only proper authority:

The Church.

"But wait," some may ask.
"If churches are the only ones with the authority, then if a church
officiates it, then you must accept it."

Again, that might make
sense...except the churches that do allow this are losing members because of
this very subject. Giving only churches the authority doesn't change the fact
it's still up to the parishioners whether they want to stay.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Myth #9: The march for gay rights is
no different than the black civil rights movement or the women's suffrage
movement.

Reality: That logic is dishonest at
worst and sketchy at best.

In his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama compared Stonewall to Selma and Seneca Falls (a town in New York state considered the starting point for the 20's women's movement) as examples of our striving for all to be equal before the law.

There are several things wrong with that comparison.

First off, unlike being gay, you can't help it if you were born black or born a woman (Michael Jackson and transsexuals notwithstanding). Second, although the majority of blacks voted for Obama, the vast majority are against gay marriage and don't buy the "equality with civil rights" argument. Third, there was a whole legal code that prevented blacks from having full rights (better known as Jim Crow); there is no such thing concerning homosexuals. Fourth, those other two didn't demonize their opposition; the gay movement is NOTORIOUS for demonizing their opposition.

Even the Civil Rights Act doesn't agree with this notion. In order to be a protected class under the law, the group must meet these three criteria:
(1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics. It further states that any business that engages in interstate commerce cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin. Sexual orientation does not meet any of these requirements.

Myth #10: Legalizing gay marriage
will settle the issue once and for all.

Reality: Even the most optimistic
estimates predict several future legal headaches.

With DOMA in essence struck down, we now have opened Pandora's Box when it comes to legal issues concerning this. Sure, gay marriage is legal on the federal level, but the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and
lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits
that could make their way back to the Supreme Court. The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them.
The problem lies in a constitutional notion called full faith and credit, meaning in some instances states must recognize the laws of other states. The problem concerning this is some states legalized gay marriage but most have not. Are we supposed to believe the gay couple would stay in the state where it is legal? What's to stop them from filing lawsuits against these bans?
Now, let's forget about the legal consequences for a moment; what about employment?
Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said
employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide.
She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve
employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to
employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will
require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon
predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they
deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.
Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based
in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in
from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a
same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or
she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't
allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of
work is, so there's no simple answer. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gay-couples-employers-could-face-legal-maze-supreme-094406233--politics.html

Myth #11: Gay marriage won't destroy
heterosexual marriage.

Reality: Several gay figureheads now
admit destroying straight marriage is the main point.

In a speech given to the Sydney Writer’s Festival, gay activist Masha Gessen voiced her support for gay marriage but also included the following remark:
"I also think equally it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist...Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there."

The most disturbing part? These remarks were greeted with thunderous applause from the people there.

Still don't believe me? The leaders of the Gay Liberation
Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of
marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the
system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.”

Myth #12: Even if the gay couples later divorce, the divorce rate is no different than straight couples. Reality: Notice the slight of hand in the statement.

They first claim the supposedly high divorce rate in straight couples means we should allow gays to marry then they say the gay marriage divorce rate is no different than the straight rate. If it isn't any different, why make a bad situation worse? Besides, if they say that about the gay divorce rate with a straight face, they're wrong. According to a joint study by Norway and Denmark, divorce rates were between 50-167% higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and
that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more subject to
serious change, than unions of gay men.

Myth #13: There is no proven evidence for the effect of homosexuality on a person.Reality: There exists death records and studies that tell a different story.

Dr Paul Cameron, the first doctor to document the dangers of second-hand smoke, cited a study published in Oxford's International Journal of Epidemiology that found a gay man or woman married in the legal sense to their partner died at about age 60; for straight people married to their partner, they lived to about age 80.

In his own study of 2,428 obituaries from The San Francisco
Chronicle and The Boston Globe, Cameron said the median age of death for
conventionally married men was 82, women 85, similar to Denmark. Of
1,400 obituaries in San Francisco’s gay press, the median age of death
was 54 for gays who died without a listed partner, 51 with. For
lesbians, the median age of death was 56 for those without a listed
partner, but 54 with. For transsexuals, the corresponding figures were
46 and 42.5. “Whether informal, as in San Francisco, or formal, as in
Denmark, homosexual partnerships were associated with lessened
lifespan,” said Cameron, “just the opposite of man-woman marriage.”

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

THE MASKED ANGEL:
Quick disclosure: I was about to name this post "Debunking Myths about Homosexuality" but then it dawned on me that if I went with that name, then people would get the idea that I was going along with the direction of society (the zeitgeist, one might say) that stated there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. I not only do not agree with that notion but given what I have found about homosexuality, I will most likely never agree with that notion; once one reads the truths presented here about it, I don't think any rational human being can ever say homosexuality could ever be okay.
So here we go: popular notions about homosexuality and why none of them make sense.

Myth #1: People are born gay.
Reality: Science has found no proof of this.

In order for the "born gay" or "born that way" to work, there would have to be either a gene or something unique brain structure wise for that stand to hold up.
Recently, we have a perfect, living, breathing example of the gay gene theory not being true: Jason Collins. I'm not sure if many people caught this but while he was being interviewed, it was revealed he has an identical twin brother---who is in fact not gay himself. That right there should have been enough to bust the myth of there being a gay gene, but since that isn't politically-correct, the media quickly glossed over it.
Research has found some brain structure differences in gay people ( proportioned right hemispheres, INAH3, startle response, a different response to fluoxetin) but so far, these have all been mere coincidence and nothing conclusive can be drawn.

Myth #2: God made people gay.
Reality: We have our own crosses to bear.

Some people are born with a disposition to anger, or to alcoholism, or to drug use or to blood disorders. That doesn't change the fact we still have the power of choice nor does it change the fact there are such things as appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. In the case of biological disorders, we have the choice to treat it or not to treat it. In the case of temptations, we can choose to act on them or not to act on them. The point of these examples is to show we don't just make things moral or legal just because we want them to be. There is such a thing as absolute truth and the notion of God making people gay tends to ignore that.

Myth #3: There is no difference between the gay lifestyle and the straight lifestyle.
Reality: On average, practicing homosexuals die 10 to 20 years sooner than heterosexuals.

Now, before people write to me about this, the fact that some people have been killed for being gay won't be denied here. Such an event is tragic and has no place in a civilized society.

Having said that though, that doesn't change the fact even the CDC now admits practicing gays can at best expect a lifespan 10 to 20 years shorter than their heterosexual counterparts. And it's not because of one main reason either.
According to a 2010 CDC press release, out of all new HIV cases found in American men, 72% were spread through homosexual activity. According to Americans for Truth, gays are 44 times more likely than straight men to contract HIV and 40 times more likely than straight women to get HIV. I'm not saying straight people can't get HIV; I am saying though we need to be honest about the consequences of homosexual actions.

(Side note: I am not alone in thinking that. That same CDC press release said the following: "Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority."
Show of hands: how many ads have you seen directed to gays encouraging them to practice safe sex? Anyone?)

The CDC has also determined gays are more likely to come down with not just HIV but all known STDs, including syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, not to mention more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, and commit suicide. And before anyone writes to me and says "gays suffer depression and abuse drugs because of the societal hatred of gays", keep in mind both of those are complicated mental issues that have no one cause so it is at best illogical and at worst insulting to the person suffering those disorders for someone to pass off their own assumptions as a diagnoses. I would also refer you to what I said in Myth 3 concerning power of choice.

So why are the rates so high? Mostly because gays act like teenagers, in the sense that they think they can do whatever they want and not suffer the consequences. I won't get into much more detail because the explanation is X-rated, so instead, I'll refer you to this article: http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html

Myth #4: 10% of America is gay.
Reality: Figures vary but none come close to the 10% estimate.

The Human Rights Campaign, the forefront of the gay rights movement, has gone on record admitting at best 2.9% of Americans are gay. According to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute at the

UCLA School of Law, the gay population is 3.8% or 3.5%. Out of all major cities in America, only six report

a gay population over 10%, no state has a population over 6% and only 3.4% of voters in Election 2012

were gay. By all measurements, the 10% figure is a myth.

So why do people still tout it?

The figure comes from a now debunked study from Dr. Alfred Kinsey called The Kinsey Reports. Among the most shocking errors was the American Statistical Association condemning the sampling procedure. Famous psychologist Abraham Maslow (of the famous Maslow's hierarchy of needs) also condemned the study, proving Kinsey didn't accurately represent the general population. (See the Voris video on homosexuality for more problems with the report).

Myth #5: If the people are okay with gay marriage, then it should be legal.
Reality: Then why are gay rights people suing in court when the vote doesn't go their way?

I'm not going to put much into this because this is preposterous on the surface alone. You can't say in one breath "let the people decide" and then say "the people voted to take my civil rights away." In addition, you can't say "let the people decide" and be okay with judges making the decision for the people. That's
tyranny.

Myth #6: Half of straight marriages end in divorce so straights shouldn't be talking about the "sanctity of marriage."
Reality: Even if the half figure was true (which it isn't), people still have more faith in straight marriage than gay.
First off, the amount of failing marriages is NOT 50%. That figure comes from dubious math that divides the number of divorces by the number of marriages that happen in a year....in other words, it assumes the people marrying are the same people divorcing. What it should be based on is the number of divorces per 1000 married couples; that gives us a divorce rate of about 20%.

Let's assume for a moment the 50% figure is right. So what? Logically, how does that translate to needing to redefine what makes a marriage. I have yet to come across anybody who can explain this.

Myth #7: Marriage hasn't stayed the same through history and gay marriage is just another type.
Reality: Not all takes on changing marriage have proven successful.

For example, in some cultures, it was okay to marry a 9 year old girl to a grown man, despite the fact that practice wasn't always in the culture. Up until a few decades ago, there was no such thing as no-fault divorce laws in America. Up until four decades ago, divorce was frowned upon; now we hardly bat an eye at it. Up until five decades ago, it was considered immoral to have a child out of wed lock; now it's almost expected.

Even practices within marriage haven't all been for the better. A good number of engaged couples live together before marriage, even though studies show that's a sure sign of divorce later. Some couples don't even bother with marriage or getting engaged and go right to the living together. Even the number of children being born has dropped quite a bit since the 60's.
So just because change comes concerning marriage does not by itself mean it's for the better.

Myth #8: 14 states already legalized gay marriage.
Reality: Only 2 out of those 14 were voted on by the people.

The other 12 made it legal from either elected officials or by judicial fiat. It doesn't matter which of those two were chosen, the fact of the matter remains the people in those states had to "get used to it" by force. Is that an American action to take? I don't think so.
But honestly, can you blame gay marriage advocates for not wanting people to vote on it? In 35 states, the people were given the choice to vote and only 2 out of those 35 were successful. So if you hated the vote of the people that much, wouldn't you find some sneaky way to get around it?

Saturday, June 22, 2013

I've often wondered why out of all the months out of the year, June is the one chosen for so-called gay "pride" month. After doing some research, I found out the reason is because June is the month that an event called the Stonewall Riots happened.

What are the Stonewall Riots?

The Stonewall Riots refer to a series of violent protests against an event that happened at the The Stonewall Inn located in Greewich Village in New York City. Before more details can be given about it, there are several things to keep in mind concerning the event:

1. It took place in the 1960's, a time of upheval and protests against the "establishment".
2. The riots themselves are considered the cataylist for the modern so-called "gay rights" movement.
3. The Stonewall Inn itself at the time was owned by the Mafia.
4. The Inn often catered to people considered to be on the fringe of society, so it was not unusual before the raid for people like drag queens to go to the Inn.
5. Police raids on gay bars in the 1960's did happen quite often, but for some reason, something went wrong on this raid, which we'll get to shortly.
6. The Inn itself was an anomaly even if one factors out their clientele: the bar area did not have an official liquor license but the owners arranged for people to buy drinks anyway. Like many other areas controlled by the Mafia, the owners were often tipped off when a raid was about to happen and the time for the raid was per-arranged so the bar wouldn't lose that much business.

Now, keep all of this in mind while you read the story.

The raid that sparked the riots happened on June 29, 1969. Members of the NYPD were called to the scene at 1:20 am. Standard procedure was to line up the patrons, check their
identification, and have female police officers take customers dressed
as women to the bathroom to verify their sex, upon which any men dressed
as women would be arrested. Those dressed as women that night refused
to go with the officers. Men in line began to refuse to produce their
identification. As if the refusal by the patrons wasn't bad enough, the patrol car used to hall the liquor (which by the way, the Inn couldn't serve anyway since they didn't have a license) wouldn't get there for another fifteen minutes. Those who were cleared by the cops were allowed to leave but instead of going back home (or the nearby park, as a good number of youth who frequented the bar were homeless) started forming a crowd outside. The cops on the scene called in for another wagon but it was delayed because of a communication error.

It was around this time the growing crowd starting believing any and all rumors that anyone started. One person claimed the police raided the place because the Mob didn't pay them off so the crowd started throwing coins at the officers. Another person said people inside the bar were being beaten by police, even though a follow-up investigation found no evidence of police brutality. Yet another rumor spread that the Inn was targeted because the patrons were gay, even though that was not the reason why police were called in the first place.

But when people who have lost their minds long ago gather in a big group and believe whatever they're told as long as it suits their viewpoint, they turn violent and that is exactly what happened over the next few days. While the weather did slow some altercations, overall the street Stonewall faced was flooded with people and people living in the Village, whether gay or not, cheered the violence and in some cases participated in it.

The next year marked the first gay "pride" parade in remembrance of the event and national attention to the groups Daughters of Bilitis, Mattachine Society, and the Gay Activists Alliance; one of these thought it was a good idea to form libraries with lesbian porn, one was founded by a man who would later create NAMBLA and the other got the idea to interrupt press conferences for no reason.

And there you have it: the truth behind the gay "pride" parades. Notice I keep putting "pride" in quotation marks? That's because gays have nothing to have pride in. Would you be proud if you learned your movement was created on false pretenses and marked by blind violence?

Thursday, June 20, 2013

On June 21, 2013, the USCCB has called on all faithful Catholics to celebrate the Fortnight For Freedom.
For those new to this, the Fortnight for Freedom is a two-week period of prayer and action, to address many current challenges to religious liberty, including the August 1, 2013
deadline for religious organizations to comply with the HHS mandate,
Supreme Court rulings that could attempt to redefine marriage in June, and religious
liberty concerns in areas such as immigration and humanitarian services.

In celebration of it, I present here a copy of a prayer for government penned by the great American
Archbishop John Carroll. Feel free to spread this around to everyone.

Prayer for Government

We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ
hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy
mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may
continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly
knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope N., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, N.,
all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially
those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy
ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom
authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment
decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the
President of these United States, that his administration may be
conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over
whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by
a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by
restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom
direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the
proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they
may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national
happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and
may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state, for the
members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers
who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be
enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their
respective stations with honesty and ability.We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and
fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed
in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law;
that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world
cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted
to those which are eternal.Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of
Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and
repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and
friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation,
and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who,
by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for
the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful
and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in
Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and
everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior.
Amen.

Saturday, June 8, 2013

During this past week, several events happened that
I either didn't have enough to comment on for a full blog, or the event itself
said all that needed to be said. So for this first ever Odds and Ends post,
I've put together five announcements and stories in one post.

First
things first: One will notice I am now starting to put AMDG at the start of
every post. This is not to say that I am going full Jesuit because I still have
issues with the order (despite the fact Pope Francis is a Jesuit) but that
doesn't mean there's something wrong with their spirituality. We should do all
we can for the greater glory so until the Vatican condemns Loyola's writings,
I'm sticking with it. Besides the phrase also appears in Montfort's writings
and even the FSSP uses it on their own website.

Second: It’s graduation time in America and one
particular valedictorian speech has been getting national attention for
standing up to the atheist bulling Christians into silence. When told he was
going to give the valedictorian speech, Liberty High School senior Roy Costner
lead the crowd in the Lord’s Prayer. At first, the insane group called the
Freedom From Religion Foundation sued his school district for promoting what it
called “unconstitutional prayer practice.”

“The valedictorian who so insensitively inflicted Christian prayer on a captive audience at a secular
graduation ceremony, is a product of a school district which itself set an
unconstitutional example by hosting school board prayer,” FFRF co-president
Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a prepared statement.

Third: Speaking of bat-scat insane atheists, another
anti-religion group in Florida is planning to put up their own monument to
supposedly counter Ten Commandment monuments going up all over. Reports vary as
to what will be put on it, but from the reports I have read, it looks like it
might include a quote from Thomas Jefferson and a line from the Treaty of
Tripoli.

Yeah…lawsuits and free speech work both ways, atheists.
Go forward with this idea, and I will call on people to put up on your
monuments notes that counter everything you say. I know which quote you will
use concerning the Treaty of Tripoli, and I will point out why your reasoning
is flawed.

Then again, given how
so many people know what the First Amendment reads verses how few even know
what Treaty of Tripoli Day is, I might not have to do that. ;)

Blogs I Follow

About Me

I am a proud supporter of F.S.S.P., Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and Dominican spirituality; as such, I have taken personal promises (but not formal vows) of obedience, chastity, poverty and allegiance to the Pope. I acknowledge only the authority of the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Latin Vulgate. I have consecrated myself to the Holy Mother as written by St Louis De Montfort. I have personally taken the oath against modernism written by St Pius X.I have completed the Jesuit spiritual exercises. I believe everything the Baltimore Catechism, the Trent Catechism, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the Nicene, the Apostles and Athanasian Creed say.